Back in the day...

[Derulbaskul]

I seem to remember that AD&D introduced one of the books with frightening text that said something along the lines of "deviating from any of these rules will spoil your game" (can't look up the exact quote at the moment I'm afraid). (snip)

Ahhh, the infamous Dragon editorials from the esteemed EGG....

but quite a few of the new breed of players will overexaggerate and rant all over you on message boards and in person.

"New breed of players?" No, I think society has coarsened in general and even more so on messageboards. Anyway, the aforementioned EGG editorials provoked much ranting and raving in the 80s. Everything old is new again, eh?

 

[Sir Elton]

The life of D&D.

I think what caused D&D to go through so many changes is that the players themselves caused the change psychologically. In the Early days when I was just a pup (like D&D), D&D became the customizable system. It provided a frame work with which you eventually made up your own game. Games like GURPS, the Palladium System, and Rolemaster probably came out of this early Era.

When AD&D came out when I was still a pup (7 years old) there was a clamor for something stable. AD&D 1E was the result. It was stable through the eighties and through some of my Childhood and early teens. In 1990, the AD&D game changed again, this time mostly from pressure from the outside world. Although by that time, I changed. I was turning to other systems to get some kind of game that would allow me a good deal of flexibility with a good structure that was easily learned. I tried basically everything I could get a hold of, and that darned Palladium system held me captive because I thought it suited my needs. Although when I broke away, I looked at Ars Magica and Blue Planet. They were so nearly on the ticket. The Feng Shui RPG actually turned out to be exactly what I was looking for, ironically enough!

When I was twenty-five and the D&D brand was twenty-six, the psychology of the community demanded a D&D that was flexible but strong. We've got it, baby. And Ryan Dancey made it so that anyone could publish and improve on it (a result of the 1994-1995 TSR AD&D Brand Internet Copyright and Trademark scandals!).

Psychologically, the public has what it wants. A D&D that is changeable and strong. You can change the system, and it is still d20 in several respects. Diaglo not withstanding, there will be those who still prefer the older systems. But the majority wanted what D&D 3E is now. And that is what we have.

It's not perfect. I doubt that it will be perfect if ever, but it's come of age. We've known D&D all it's life, through thick and thin. It's changed, its grown, it mellowed with age. Once it had been a very impressionable child (oD&D), but it's personality began to develop (AD&D, D&D basic), then it turned into an obstinate tweenager (AD&D 2E), and finally it had become a flexible but firm adult (D&D 3e). It's certainly not the game it was (a reference to Diaglo), but it's personality still has echos of that original game.

 

[cdsaint]

to have fun.

the first rule is always to have fun. if you aren't having fun playing this game. you should try something else.

Please meet my new sig. Thanks diaglo for breaking it down so concisely. No matter what we disagree on, we should all be able to agree on this.

Chris

 

[grodog]

tourneys and D&D

The flirtation with AD&D as a tournament game can be clearly seen in the early modules: the Giants, Drow, Ghost Tower and Slavers were all part of that early competitive atmosphere.

In some cases that's true, Merric, but the G and D modules were released and published and then run as tourneys at GenCon IIRC. I'll have to fact-check that, but I'm pretty sure that's correct.

Now, the later modules, A1-4, C1-2, R1-4, S1-4, and others, were definitely written and run as tourneys, then published at a later date.

However, it quickly became apparent that different groups will achieve different results based on who their DM was for the session! The game is too wild for a level playing field. That doesn't mean that the organisers of these tournaments didn't try...

Indeed, there's an early Dragon article which explains that all of the monsters in a particular tournament module were unintelligent to limit the options of the DMs!

Heh This also clearly gets back to the turn-based action and reaction sequence of wargames: wanting to be able to program and standardize the results so that all groups basically had the same DM experience.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

With the greatest respect to the players here at EN World, I'd like to put forward my view. I've played from the red box right through AD&D, 2e and up to 3.5 as I play now. With each step I have found the game becomes simpler yet stronger and, with the small bugs and problems each re-write introduces not withstanding, I feel a more rounded and more easily-used game.

Being one of the lucky (we Brits seem to have the ability to truly pick and choose our players), I DM for two different groups every week, and have played long-term and regularly with over 6 different groups in the past few years. These players (about 30 in all) range from newbies who've never role-played before, through people who've played some, to people I've played with for 15 years straight. The newbies and the old-timers I have no problems with. The newbies learn to play in my style, which is very free-form and loose. The old-timers have been playing that style for years. Those who have played a bit of D&D or AD&D take a little time to settle in, but they come to get used to the system and enjoy the games.

No, my problems have all come from those who learned 3.x with another DM then came to my game. Why? Because they treat the game differently. Perhaps it's the way the rules are written down. Perhaps it's the way the rules are treated and described. Perhaps it's the advent of CRPGs and CCGs that players seem to 'graduate' from before they start role-playing.
These players argue constantly. These players count skill points. These players read up and remember monster weaknesses. These players track XP on their character sheets to go hunting for more when they get close to levelling up. These players hassle the DM constantly to see if they can add skill points and feats. These players bring no personality for their characters to the table, just a min/maxed set of numbers.

The players I've dealt with have come different DMs, so it can't just be the DM. I can only suggest it must be the system, and the way it puts the game across to new players. They are taught that this is a strategic simulation of dice rolling and collecting stuff. They are taught that characters only survive if they have at least average wealth for their level and items that boost every conceivable stat and some others.
As a DM I regularly run many types of game. High fantasy, low fantasy, space opera, horror, dungeon crawl... All using d20 and D&D. I can generally fit what I write to the type of game my players want at the time, and they enjoy it. Some of this group of players adapt to the style of DM I am (and stop checking SP etc.), but many have great difficulty with it, and they leave my game after arguments which amount to "I don't care if you're the DM, the rules apply to you too." As a DM I cut my teeth on AD&D, and DM'd right through 2e, and this doesn't feel right to me.

So I suppose my point is this: 3e has a different feel to it. It teaches new players to play a vastly different style of game to the old systems. Whilst those of us who learned to play in the previous systems have no problems picking up the system and making it feel and run like D&D always has, those who are new to our rarified hobby are getting a completely different feel for the game, especially when played without the benefit of experienced players from the older systems. That feel seems much more towards the kill things / get stuff / grow tougher / not much else feel of CCGs and CRPGs than the story systems I grew up playing.

 

[Numion]

So I suppose my point is this: 3e has a different feel to it. It teaches new players to play a vastly different style of game to the old systems. Whilst those of us who learned to play in the previous systems have no problems picking up the system and making it feel and run like D&D always has, those who are new to our rarified hobby are getting a completely different feel for the game, especially when played without the benefit of experienced players from the older systems. That feel seems much more towards the kill things / get stuff / grow tougher / not much else feel of CCGs and CRPGs than the story systems I grew up playing.

You have sound reasoning in your posts. However my experiences differ from yours. I learned to play in the Basic D&D / 1st ed AD&D era, and our games were much more munchkinny, hack'n'slash and shallow than since then. Could it be that the players you've encountered are that way not because they started with 3E, but because they're younger (and thats why they learned with 3E)?

 

[Buttercup]

The folks in my group give me a lot of leeway as a DM. They don't worry about such things as whether or not all of the skill points I assign to an NPC add up. They seem to be comfortable with trusting me to provide them with an adventure that is challenging and fun, without feeling a need to "check the math". Took me a while to realize that they did in fact trust me with the system. Once I did, I started having a lot more fun as a 3E DM. But until then, I spent a lot of time during game prep worrying about balance. We still have game days where we spend too much time in-game, scratching our heads about what modifiers stack, etc.., but all in all, we're playing 3E how we want, without fear of an Inquisition.

This pretty much matches my experiences. The first time someone uses a rule or feature, or a new combination of rules/features, we have to look it up and puzzle out what the rule is, and then we decide if the rule makes sense to us. If it does, we move on. If it doesn't, we make up our own and move on.

However, I've witnessed other groups where the number crunchers sit and calculate every move made by NPCs/Monsters and then gripe about the CRs and make claims like "there's no way that Rogue was between 4th and 6th level, he was way too hard of a challenge, you screwed us." I feel sorry for those DMs, unless they really are trying to screw the players.

I wouldn't want to play with people who metagame like that, and I certainly wouldn't DM for them. I suppose there are some, but I haven't met them yet.

 

[Ranes]

The players I've dealt with have come different DMs, so it can't just be the DM. I can only suggest it must be the system, and the way it puts the game across to new players.

With reciprocal respect, I suggest it isn't, because I've encountered the same supposition at least as many times as there are game systems. I think Numion's response may shed more light on the reasons for your Generation 3E players' approach.

So I suppose my point is this: 3e has a different feel to it. It teaches new players to play a vastly different style of game to the old systems. Whilst those of us who learned to play in the previous systems have no problems picking up the system and making it feel and run like D&D always has, those who are new to our rarified hobby are getting a completely different feel for the game, especially when played without the benefit of experienced players from the older systems. That feel seems much more towards the kill things / get stuff / grow tougher / not much else feel of CCGs and CRPGs than the story systems I grew up playing.

If I put a red line through your use of the word 'vastly', I can go along with this, to a degree. As you say yourself (or rather, as I infer), Generation 3E players are much more likely to have played CCGs and CRPGs; it is this, rather than 3E's rules presentation that influences their expectations and style of play, I suspect.

Merric, dude, marvelous thread.

I find the discussion of tournament issues as fascinating an aspect of this as anything. Am I mistaken in thinking that fewer people write modules with tournaments in mind nowadays? Are we all way too cool for that now?

 

[diaglo]

In some cases that's true, Merric, but the G and D modules were released and published and then run as tourneys at GenCon IIRC. I'll have to fact-check that, but I'm pretty sure that's correct.

as far as i remember... the D series was first run at Origins as a tourney... and then published. it may have been sprung on Gary's group first... but to the general public it was tourney first. same held true with the G series...

Now, the later modules, A1-4, C1-2, R1-4, S1-4, and others, were definitely written and run as tourneys, then published at a later date.

which is why you can find tournment scoring in the C series... and better statted pregens... with specific items.

 

[diaglo]

What exactly does this mean? diaglo? "The party is over"?

Sort of sounds like he is saying OD&D was easy and/or the Players had it easy vs. the DM, and AD&D changed this.

"The party is over" was a blanket statement for some of the creativity.

actually, if you read the foreword to Gods, Demigods, & Heroes.. Supplement IV. you will find a better idea from Tim Kask what Gary is talking about...

there were some referees who just had no idea what was off limits for sensible play when going to a tournament... they let the PCs in their campaigns have God levels and items... much like those type of GMs still do today... (Monty Haul)


Merric is pretty much spot on with the rest of his comment concerning this question.